While other MediaPost newsletters and articles remain free to all ... our new Research Intelligencer service is reserved for paid subscribers ...

Subscribe today to gain access to the every Research Intelligencer article we publish as well as the exclusive daily newsletter, full access to The MediaPost Cases, first-look research and daily insights from Joe Mandese, Editor in Chief.

Commentary

Data Diversity Training

In the past month, I’ve heard lots of complaining about data. I’ve been guilty of it myself, and (gulp) will be now. I recently saw something that said that if you don’t
have first-party data, you are nowhere, a loser in the great data race. That is simply not true. Second- and third-party data can be great, and first- party data can be garbage.

It’s like diversity. We should stop judging data based on who collected it, and look at what it really is.

True, first-party data performs better. The reason is that category interest is likely going to be higher.
Contacts within it are people who care about the category enough to have visited your Web site.

But there is more to dataset effectiveness than category interest. There’s reach (to
humans). You want both — and more.

advertisement

advertisement

If you want to preach to the unconverted, you are kind of stuck with second- or third-party data. Don’t despair, though, until after you
read the next paragraph, after which you may discover a whole new level of despair.

There are at least three very real problems with first-party data: 1) Folks identified may already purchase
your brand, so they are not someone who needs to be persuaded. 2) They may have looked at your site and decided against your brand, fully informed, which means they are a poor prospect. 3) They may
have come looking for a discount, in which case they are cherry-pickers — that is, not loyal, and lo- margin.

Add these up, and first-party data, already lacking reach, might not
have the marketing muscle you expect. These are not the droids you’re looking for.

Also, regarding first-party data, people over-value what they already own. After all, it
makes a good story (Competitive advantage! Free!). People feel less trustful about data they bought, but sharp marketers ignore the romance. Data works or it doesn’t.

But, even if
you know a dataset worked, you only get a C+ unless you know why.

“Who” is the key to “why.” Consider this: The real, recency-adjusted prospects in your data might be
20% — or 80% — of the audience in the dataset. Nominally, talking to 4x more prospects would yield 4x the return. This is somewhat fuzzy, but intuitively obvious. Prospect density
times reach will predict success pretty well — except you probably don’t know what the prospect density really was. Value, then, is reach to qualified humans whose purchase behavior an ad
might change. No surprise, I hope.

Free data, if it does not contain the right audience, stops being free when you use it to buy media. Wrong data wastes more media than robots, I suspect.

As to the “why,” absent the knowledge of just whom you are talking to, if something good happened, you might attribute your success to the wrong thing (Creative, maybe?) and do more of
the wrong thing as a result. As we know, marching efficiently in the wrong direction is way worse than going nowhere at all. A course correction requires you know where you are.

So, until you
know about the people you reached, you can’t know what caused other measured outcomes. Awareness, for example, is pointless among people who don’t buy the category, and success has a
thousand fathers.

Data has transcended being the new black. It’s here to stay, embedded in the learning loops held dear by brands, media companies, intermediaries, marketing clouds, and
so on. Contact data (a cookie, mobile ID) is particularly powerful because it can be activated directly from learning. Your media, so carefully chosen, is only as good as your data.

Sometimes
the origin of data gives clues about its fitness for a certain use, but if you characterize its marketing clout based only on that, there’s a disappointment in your future. Characterization
based on an inference made by whoever collected it (first, second, third) is sketchy.

Sadly, characterization based on a whiff of truth is about the best we can do today, but as with all black
holes in programmatic media, a little focus can go a long way. Focus on data.